An editorial from the Wisconsin State Journal
January 8, 2004

The United States Department of Labor announced this week that, over the
course of last year, American businesses cut 1,236,426 jobs in 2003,
exposing the lie of President Bush's so-called economic "recovery."

Far from easing up, the cuts increased as 2003 went on - the final
quarter of the year saw 364,346 job cut announcements, making it the
worst quarter for such announcements in 2003.

"(It) is difficult to get too excited about a year in which more than
1.2 million people fell victim to downsizing," says employment analyst
John Challenger.

We agree. Indeed, if the Bush "recovery" heats up much more, we wonder
whether anyone will have a job.
--
Email sent to is never read.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:37:35 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

An editorial from the Wisconsin State Journal
January 8, 2004

The United States Department of Labor announced this week that, over the
course of last year, American businesses cut 1,236,426 jobs in 2003,
exposing the lie of President Bush's so-called economic "recovery."

Far from easing up, the cuts increased as 2003 went on - the final
quarter of the year saw 364,346 job cut announcements, making it the
worst quarter for such announcements in 2003.

"(It) is difficult to get too excited about a year in which more than
1.2 million people fell victim to downsizing," says employment analyst
John Challenger.

We agree. Indeed, if the Bush "recovery" heats up much more, we wonder
whether anyone will have a job.

Yes, someone will have a job. However, all those numbers cited above do
not agree with the actual numbers from the Dept of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Of course, it says right at the top that it's an
editorial, so it doesn't matter that it's a lie. For the actual
figures, see:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb3.txt

Brief summary:

For the most recent 12 month period that data is available for, Dec 2002
to Nov 2003, the number of non-farm employees went from 130,198,000 to
130,174,000 for a loss of 24,000 jobs, not 1.2 million. Also, it's a
lie that the last quarter saw job cuts. The latest 3 months in the
chart (Sept-Nov 2003) jobs went from 129,980,000 to 130,174,000 for a
net gain of 194,000 jobs, which is a pretty good quarter.

Someone should tell the Wisconsin State Journal to check the figures in
their editorials before they publish them.

Steve

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:02:16 +0000, Steven Shelikoff wrote:


Someone should tell the Wisconsin State Journal to check the figures in
their editorials before they publish them.

The figures are accurate. The Wisconsin figures are "gross" job losses.
Your figure, 24,000, is "net" jobs lost. To reconcile the two, think
population growth.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:40:41 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:02:16 +0000, Steven Shelikoff wrote:


Someone should tell the Wisconsin State Journal to check the figures in
their editorials before they publish them.

The figures are accurate. The Wisconsin figures are "gross" job losses.
Your figure, 24,000, is "net" jobs lost. To reconcile the two, think
population growth.

Wrong again. From the BLS website:

Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec
2003 8428 8581 8519 8799 8957 9245 9048 8929
8966 8797 8653 8398

IOW, there were 8,428,000 unemployed persons over 16 in Jan 2003 and
8,398,000 unemployed persons in Dec 2003. Where are the 1.2 million
people who lost their job? Especially if the population is growing.

Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec
2003 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1
6.1 6.0 5.9 5.7

The unemployment rate takes into account changes in population. The
rate was 5.8% in Jan 2003 and 5.7% in Dec 2003.

If you'd like to contend that the Wisconsin figures are anything but a
total fabrication, where's the data to back them up?

Steve

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:50:29 +0000, Steven Shelikoff wrote:


If you'd like to contend that the Wisconsin figures are anything but a
total fabrication, where's the data to back them up?

Gross job loss is a different bird. Wade through it if you must:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.toc.htm

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:59:23 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:50:29 +0000, Steven Shelikoff wrote:


If you'd like to contend that the Wisconsin figures are anything but a
total fabrication, where's the data to back them up?

Gross job loss is a different bird. Wade through it if you must:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.toc.htm

Show me where it supports the assertion of the Wisconsin editorial that
"American businesses cut 1,236,426 jobs in 2003." That statement is a
*net* jobs statement. But even if you take it as a gross jobs
statement, it's still WAY off ... on the low side.

Steve

Harry Krause wrote:
An editorial from the Wisconsin State Journal
January 8, 2004

The United States Department of Labor announced this week that, over the
course of last year, American businesses cut 1,236,426 jobs in 2003,
exposing the lie of President Bush's so-called economic "recovery."

Far from easing up, the cuts increased as 2003 went on - the final
quarter of the year saw 364,346 job cut announcements, making it the
worst quarter for such announcements in 2003.

"(It) is difficult to get too excited about a year in which more than
1.2 million people fell victim to downsizing," says employment analyst
John Challenger.

We agree. Indeed, if the Bush "recovery" heats up much more, we wonder
whether anyone will have a job.

Ya know Harry.

What is the recovery plan from you. In the current enviroment what would
you like to see different. I personaly am concerned about jobs going
overseas. And about jobs lost'ed in the us for many reasons.

Capt Jack R.

Jack Redington wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
An editorial from the Wisconsin State Journal
January 8, 2004

The United States Department of Labor announced this week that, over the
course of last year, American businesses cut 1,236,426 jobs in 2003,
exposing the lie of President Bush's so-called economic "recovery."

Far from easing up, the cuts increased as 2003 went on - the final
quarter of the year saw 364,346 job cut announcements, making it the
worst quarter for such announcements in 2003.

"(It) is difficult to get too excited about a year in which more than
1.2 million people fell victim to downsizing," says employment analyst
John Challenger.

We agree. Indeed, if the Bush "recovery" heats up much more, we wonder
whether anyone will have a job.

Ya know Harry.

What is the recovery plan from you. In the current enviroment what would
you like to see different. I personaly am concerned about jobs going
overseas. And about jobs lost'ed in the us for many reasons.

Capt Jack R.


I'd start with the following:

1. Instead of cutting taxes for the wealthy, I'd spend billions on
rebuilding the infrastructure and public buildings of the United States,
its roads, bridges, power plants, airports, hospitals, schools, et
cetera. Bidding restricted, of course, to U.S.-owned companies employing
U.S. workers.

2. I'd cut *all* tax subsidies for corporations who export jobs.

3. I'd invest billions in the future of America and Americans by
providing massive retraining programs for workers displaced by the
economy or technology. We have to stop discarding our workforce.

Just for starters.



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 05:26:55 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

I'd start with the following:

1. Instead of cutting taxes for the wealthy, I'd spend billions on
rebuilding the infrastructure and public buildings of the United States,
its roads, bridges, power plants, airports, hospitals, schools, et cetera.
Bidding restricted, of course, to U.S.-owned companies employing U.S.
workers.

2. I'd cut *all* tax subsidies for corporations who export jobs.

3. I'd invest billions in the future of America and Americans by providing
massive retraining programs for workers displaced by the economy or
technology. We have to stop discarding our workforce.

Just for starters.

Makes sense to me, especially #2.

Harry Krause wrote:

I'd start with the following:
Just for starters.


What would you do with corporations like Ullico?

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---